Scott Brown Agrees to the People's Pledge

Since the disastrous Citizens United decision two years ago, there has been an unprecedented flood of corporate special interest money into the political process, much of it from the oil industry and other polluters. While we cannot take directions from any candidate on our independent activities, we will respect the People's Pledge agreed to by Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown. We hope that Scott Brown will honor his end of the deal when Crossroads and the Koch Brothers inevitably break it.

In retrospect, many may wonder what led Scott Brown to quickly initiate this ceasefire, especially with such formidable corporate supporters with deep pockets. With the pledge now agreed upon by both candidates and presumably being followed, LCV thought it prudent to take a look back at the influences behind this decision by Scott Brown.

The fall of 2011 proved to be tumultuous time for Brown's popularity. The following timeline of events likely contributed to his decision to initiate the People's Pledge:

• SEPTEMBER 2011 -- A UMass Lowell -- Boston Herald Political Poll shows Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown about even among registered voters in the race for Massachusetts' U.S. Senate seat. Brown 41% - Warren 38%
• OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2011 -- LCV runs 1.8 million in television advertising in Massachusetts highlighting Senator Scott Brown's record in Washington of putting corporate polluters ahead of public health.
• NOVEMBER 2011 -- Elizabeth Warren is targeted with $596,000 in negative television advertising bought by Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a political organization founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove.
• DECEMBER 2011-- A UMass Lowell -- Boston Herald Political Poll shows Elizabeth Warren has gained an apparent lead over Republican incumbent Scott Brown for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. Warren 49% - Brown 42%
• JANUARY 2012 -- Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown agree to a joint pledge to try to limit outside advertising in the Massachusetts Senate race.

Clearly Scott Brown saw that in a spending war that exposed his voting record, he would ultimately lose out. It's important to note that LCV's advertising campaign was exactly that: non-electoral issue advertising aimed at educating Brown's constituents about his anti-environment voting record and to encourage them to contact the senator regarding pending legislation. In fact these ads were part of a larger legislative accountability effort that focused on the votes of multiple members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and across the country.

LCV believes that when unlimited spending is allowed in the electoral arena, misinformation campaigns by Big Oil and other special interests will be amplified and more lethal, potentially drowning out the voices of the majority of Americans who support investing in clean American energy, reducing our dangerous dependence on oil and protecting vital public health safeguards. LCV has a 40 year history of lobbying Congress to pass pro-environment legislation, working to hold members of Congress accountable for their votes, and electing pro-environment leaders. This history -- along with our 400,000 supporters across the country -- sets us apart from the secretive oil billionaires who have tried to hijack our political process. But we know that the only thing oil companies have going for them are their deep pockets, so if this agreement in Massachusetts will help sideline them, we welcome it.

 

Comments

[hroark314]

05:08 PM on 02/22/2012

So, you're really concerned about Big Oil. What about special interests like GreenPeace or the solar industry or AWEA? Do they not concern you? They're far more dependent on subsidies than the oil industry and, unlike the oil industry whose profits are largely spread throughout a wide class of investors, green energy primarily benefits a few wealthy investors with political connections. Shouldn't we be worried about those special interests?

[Panay]

01:58 PM on 02/22/2012

Gene -- your historical timeline is revisionist. After LCV dropped $5 million dollars in mesleading ads on Brown (one showing him littering and the other with oil dripping from his hands) he knew that partisan special interest groups like yours were never going to take the high ground. He made the offer to Warren. She's the one who delayed the decision and eventually signed on once the media started hammering her. Oh and also, the latest poll has brown up by 9%. Use your member's money for something useful besides spreading lies.

[BenDoubleCrossed]

12:00 PM on 02/22/2012

Super PACs can be used by groups of everyday people to pool their money and make their voices heard. For a different view of Super PACs I recommend:

SuperPac Launches 250 Million Dollar Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama
ABO 2012SuperPac announced the start of an unprecedented juggernaut to unseat President Obama. According to the ABO2012SuperPac.com website, "for the first time in America, thanks to the Citizens United decision (which allows unlimited individual and corporate campaign contributions), individuals and small and medium size businesses have the freedom to have their voices heard, and to have an impact on the presidential election."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/superpac-launches-250-million-dollar-220000086.html

The Credo super PAC will be different from other super PACs in key ways. Instead of relying on wealthy donors - such as Newt Gingrich's super-PAC patron Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate whose family has contributed $10 million in support of Gingrich - Credo's super PAC will focus on small donors. So far, the average contribution from its 20,000 donors has been $20, Bond said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/13/MNDN1N67VU.DTL&tsp=1

And most of the donations to comedian Stephen Colbert's Super PAC were under $250.
http://www.kfvs12.com/story/16644573/stephen-colbert-super-pac-raises-1-million

http://ij.org/freedomflix/64-superpacvidoped
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/015244.html

[BenDoubleCrossed]

11:58 AM on 02/22/2012

So all the money spent by the energy companies back fired on their candidate.

Doesn’t that prove money alone is not the end all be all of politics?

Super PACs are indeed a two edged sword. But a sword the 1st Amendment authorizes.

The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are corruption of the 1st Amendment.

The words “appearance of corruption” are not found anywhere in the Constitution and cannot lawfully trample the plainly worded prohibition “Congress shall write no law” found in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We must rely on the ability of the people to listen to diverse views from multiple sources and determine for themselves what is true and in their best interest.

[hroark314]

05:11 PM on 02/22/2012

I think the real liberal agenda is to force politicians towards a system that's heavily reliant on public financing. If politicians require the support of government to finance their campaigns, the government bureaucrats responsible for doling out money will inevitably favor candidates who support increasing the size of government. Plus, if private interests are incapable of gaining the notice of politicians by running ad campaigns, politicans will be more likely to favor policies that enrich them and their cronies at the expense of the larger economy.